DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Filing Date
Examiner notes the effective filing date of the present invention is considered to be 02/10/2025 because provisional application 63/552,140 does not support independent claims 1 and 17.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the wearable LiDAR must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-16 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 is rejected because acronyms (lidar) should be defined at their first occurrence. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-8 and 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 5 is rejected because “low” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claims 6-8 are included because the depend from Claim 5. Claim 10 is rejected because it is unclear what is considered “other noise”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL “3D skin mapping for personalized dermatological treatment” to Haykal in view of NPL “Towards an ultrafast imaging scanning LiDAR system: a review” to Li et al. “Li”, NPL “Light and Laser-Imaging Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) in Dermatology: a new dimension for digital healthcare” to Marson et al. “Marson” and NPL “Frequency modulated continuous-wave LIDAR Module in Silicon Photonics” to Poulton et al. “Poulton”.
As for Claim 1, 3 and 16-17 , Haykal discloses an imaging system and method configured to generate high-resolution, three dimensional models of the skin offering a detailed representation of surface and subsurface features (e.g. conditions of a target; Abstract). Haykal explains 3D skin mapping utilizes laser-assisted imaging (Page 1) with optical signal processing means to produce image data (Page 3). Haykal further discloses use of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms (e.g. machine learning) to provide predictive insights and/or accurately categorizing various types of skin cancer (Pages 2 and 4).
However, Haykal does not expressly disclose use of a LiDAR on a silicon chip to provide the imaging data and a data interface to transmit the identified conditions to a monitoring system or display as claimed.
Li teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to 3D imaging systems and methods (Abstract) where a LiDAR system may include multiple laser sources and multi-channel detection (Page 1723, “Hybrid LiDAR”). Li teaches where LiDAR systems can be integrated onto an Si Substrate (e.g. silicon chip; Fig. 7 and corresponding descriptions).
In addition, Marson teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to dermatological imaging systems and methods (Page 1, “Introduction”) where LiDAR technology is used to create 3D models of the patient for “teledermatology”. Marson explains the LiDAR system generates a 3D model of a lesions color, size, shape and distribution (Page 1, “Introduction”). Examiner notes that “teledermatology” would include a data interface to transmit data to a monitoring system or display in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Accordingly, one skilled in the at would have been motivated to have modified the 3D imaging system and method described by Haykal to also include a LiDAR imaging system and method described by Li and Marson in order to provide accurate, fast 3D images in a teledermagology setting. Such a modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143). Furthermore, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have integrated the modified 3D LiDAR imaging system and method onto a silicon substrate in order to reduce the size of the imaging means and enhance the portability of the device. Poulton is cited herein as evidence to support the conclusion of obviousness. For example, Poulton teaches that some current LiDAR systems are bulky and expensive while integrated photonics provides a path for chip-scale LiDAR systems (Introduction). Examiner notes the modified 3D imaging system described by Haykal, Li, Marson and Poulton imaging would generate 3D spatial data, spectral reflectance data, optical scattering data, temporal data, surface and subsurface profiling of the target based on the differentiated received signals in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding Claims 2 and 9, Haykal discloses wherein the 3D skin mapping create intricate, multi-layered representations of the skin capturing parameters such as texture, pigmentation, elasticity, and vascularity while incorporating depth and spatial relationships into the analysis (Page 1). Haykal explains wherein the system can monitor pigmented lesions and early detection of skin cancer (Page 5).
With respect to Claim 4, Examiner notes the modified imaging system and method including LiDAR at multiple wavelengths would penetrate clothing or eyeglass lenses at least in part in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding Claims 5, 11-12 and 14, Li discloses where the lasers are tunable/adjustable (Pages 1710) and would be low power in its broadest reasonable interpretation. Furthermore, the system is capable of adjustment based on skin type or environmental conditions in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
With respect to Claims 6-8, Examiner notes the modified LiDAR imaging system and method is portable and handheld in its broadest reasonable interpretation given the size of the silicon chip. In addition, Haykal explains that integration with wearable devices and other biometric tools can expand the scope of the 3D skin mapping (Page 4).
As for Claim 13, Li discloses use of IR wavelengths which would penetrate different depths in its broadest reasonable interpretation (Page 1718 and 1722).
Regarding Claim 15, the modified system can monitor a plurality of conditions at a plurality of targets (e.g. multiple lesions) in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claim(s) 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haykal, Li, Marson and Poulton as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2024/013621 to Islam.
As for Claim 10, Haykal, Li, Marson and Poulton disclose a LiDAR system and method for monitoring conditions of a target as explained above. However, the art of record does not appear to disclose filtering noise.
Islam teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to optical measurement systems and methods (Abstract) where a LiDAR system may provide ambient light suppression is achieved at the sensor level by coincidence detection on the chip by filtering out background noise (Paragraph [0467]).
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have modified the LiDAR system and method described by Haykal, Li, Marson and Poulton with ambient light suppression (e.g. filtering) as described by Islam in order to enhance the accuracy of the measurements. Such a modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143).
Alternatively regarding Claim 12, Islam explains an advantage of using near infrared wavelengths is its less sensitive to skin color (Paragraph [0429]). Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have adjusted the wavelengths to be in the near-infrared region in order to accommodate all skin types.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER L COOK whose telephone number is (571)270-7373. The examiner can normally be reached M-F approximately 8AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne Kozak can be reached at 571-270-0552. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER L COOK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights